CUSTOMARY LAW ā Family Land Partition ā Uncontradicted Evidence of Partition
Principle Statement
The simple question before this court is whether or not there was sufficient evidence before the trial court to enable it conclude that there was indeed a valid partition of the land of Lamidi Balogun. ā¦ In this appeal, it was the plaintiff/respondent [who] made the case that the land of Lamidi Balogun had been partitioned. They called oral evidence through P.W.4 and P.W.5. In addition they tendered exhibit P1. On the other hand the defendants/appellant whose case was that the land had not been partitioned did not call any evidence.
Ratio Decidendi (Source)
Per Oguntade, JSC, in Yesufu v. Adama (2010) NLC-123-186-2003(SC) at pp. 14ā15; Paras EāB.
"The simple question before this court is whether or not there was sufficient evidence before the trial court to enable it conclude that there was indeed a valid partition of the land of Lamidi Balogun. ā¦ In this appeal, it was the plaintiff/respondent [who] made the case that the land of Lamidi Balogun had been partitioned. They called oral evidence through P.W.4 and P.W.5. In addition they tendered exhibit P1. On the other hand the defendants/appellant whose case was that the land had not been partitioned did not call any evidence."
Explanation / Scope
This principle establishes that uncontradicted evidence of partition can support a finding of valid partition. Where the plaintiff adduces evidence of partition and the defendant calls no evidence to contradict it, the court may accept the plaintiff’s evidence. The principle applies where the defendant fails to call evidence. It ensures that parties cannot passively resist claims. The court must still evaluate the credibility of the plaintiff’s evidence. The principle reflects that unchallenged evidence carries weight. It applies in customary land disputes. The principle prevents defendants from benefiting from their failure to adduce evidence.
